Military Review

Angara-A5 turned out to be more expensive than Proton-M: they shared plans at Roskosmos

222
Angara-A5 turned out to be more expensive than Proton-M: they shared plans at Roskosmos

The latest Russian Angara-A5 heavy-class launch vehicle turned out to be three times more expensive than the Proton decommissioned launch vehicle. This follows from the financial report of the Khrunichev Center for 2019.


According to the document, the cost of one Angara-A5 is seven billion rubles, which is three times more than the cost of the Proton-M rocket, which Angara will replace in space launches. However, Roscosmos says that according to planned measures, including a closed production cycle, the cost of the Angara-A5 rocket can be reduced to 4 billion rubles. (The cost of manufacturing the Proton-M rocket, according to data from the government procurement website for April of this year, is 2,33 billion rubles)

As part of the consolidation of the “internal reserve”, the organization, with the involvement of the Roskosmos state corporation, implements the following measures: (...) ensuring the implementation of a set of measures to reduce the cost of the Angara launch vehicle (LV), including those aimed at creating a closed-loop production PH of the Angara family at the facilities of the Production Association Flight - a branch of the organization, the city of Omsk

- says the report.

As previously reported, the Angara launch vehicle will go into production from 2024, replacing the Proton-M. It is planned that the cost of a new rocket, taking into account all the innovations, will remain within the limits of one and a half costs of Proton-M. Serial production of the rocket is planned from 2023 at the production facilities of Omsk. The Proton-M launch vehicle is planned to be completely decommissioned by 2025.
222 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 29 June 2020 09: 06 New
    +5
    For several decades, the launched rocket has been compared with the newly mastered one ... is it possible? Well, the "krantik" will be screwed. There are all kinds of appetites. Let them take in quantity ...
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 29 June 2020 09: 20 New
      +6
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      compares with the newly mastered ... but is it possible?

      This newly mastered 25 years as.
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 29 June 2020 09: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Grazdanin
        This newly mastered 25 years as

        Is it produced for 25 years, or is it being designed? There is a difference?
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 29 June 2020 09: 50 New
          +8
          No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.
          1. Bykov.
            Bykov. 29 June 2020 10: 08 New
            +3
            Quote: Grazdanin
            No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

            Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 29 June 2020 10: 18 New
              +2
              Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) - an American company, a manufacturer of space technology. Headquarters - in Hawthorne, California, USA. Founded in 2002
              August 26 1995 of the year, a Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation was issued, which determined the stages of creating the Angara complex, approved a general schedule for the creation of the complex, the volumes of its financing, as well as cooperation of co-executors.
              1. Bykov.
                Bykov. 29 June 2020 10: 19 New
                +1
                Quote: Grazdanin
                Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) - an American company, a manufacturer of space technology. Headquarters - in Hawthorne, California, USA. Founded in 2002

                Yes, yes .... and having bought all the patents of the last century from NASA, at a symbolic price of one dollar, he blurs on them "know-how" - rockets.
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 29 June 2020 10: 22 New
                  -8
                  https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_частных_компаний_космической_отрасли
                2. doubovitski
                  doubovitski 29 June 2020 11: 07 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Bulls.
                  Quote: Grazdanin
                  Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) - an American company, a manufacturer of space technology. Headquarters - in Hawthorne, California, USA. Founded in 2002

                  Yes, yes .... and having bought all the patents of the last century from NASA, at a symbolic price of one dollar, he blurs on them "know-how" - rockets.

                  It is necessary to attach the following- I got at my disposal the rest of the materials from the closed lunar programs, the Marilyn engines from there, the design bureaus dispersed after the shuttles and lunars are closed, rents (does not build) launch complexes, receives subsidies from the budget, using legislation, demonopolizes everything and all. From receiving the post of adviser to Trump, which he received, did this crook not have anything? And finally. Close comrades are comparing launch prices. But they do not understand that some prices are the prices of the MONOPOLIST, and other prices are the prices of the DEBT, WORKING THE OLD DEBTS, and working in the conditions of fierce competition.
            2. Vol4ara
              Vol4ara 29 June 2020 10: 26 New
              +4
              Quote: Bulls.
              Quote: Grazdanin
              No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

              Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

              Which of the missile mask from the last century? They began to develop Falcon Heavy in 2013 and launched it in 2018, 5 years on everything about everything, the heaviest and load-bearing rocket in the world
              1. doubovitski
                doubovitski 29 June 2020 11: 11 New
                -1
                Quote: Vol4ara
                Quote: Bulls.
                Quote: Grazdanin
                No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

                Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

                Which of the missile mask from the last century? They began to develop Falcon Heavy in 2013 and launched it in 2018, 5 years on everything about everything, the heaviest and load-bearing rocket in the world

                Falcon engines flew to the moon. Everything else is iron. When did he launch people? And the USSR - in 1961.
                The tablet is outdated slightly. Add on.
                1. Vol4ara
                  Vol4ara 29 June 2020 11: 13 New
                  -4
                  Quote: doubovitski
                  Quote: Vol4ara
                  Quote: Bulls.
                  Quote: Grazdanin
                  No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

                  Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

                  Which of the missile mask from the last century? They began to develop Falcon Heavy in 2013 and launched it in 2018, 5 years on everything about everything, the heaviest and load-bearing rocket in the world

                  Falcon engines flew to the moon. Everything else is iron. When did he launch people? And the USSR - in 1961.
                  The tablet is outdated slightly. Add on.

                  You still bring me info when the metal for the case was melted, mb under the king?
                  Started in 2013, and launched in 2018, 5 years. And we have 25.
                2. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 29 June 2020 12: 17 New
                  +7
                  Falcon engines flew to the moon.

                  Falcon-9 engines were developed by SpaceX Corporation and did not fly to any Moon.
                  1. slipped
                    slipped 29 June 2020 13: 42 New
                    -1
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    Falcon engines flew to the moon.

                    Falcon-9 engines were developed by SpaceX Corporation and did not fly to any Moon.


                    It is clear that Falcon engines did not fly laughing The engine flew using the same technology created.

                    You tell me what - how much is the production cost of the new Falcon? right there they say about the cost of the new Angara.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 29 June 2020 14: 17 New
                      +1
                      What technology? laughing
                      The cost of Falcon-9 is a trade secret. One can only judge by the launch price at which they sell. For example, one of the all-inclusive launches left NASA for $ 50 million.
                      (Just in case, the cost of production of the Angara is indicated here, and not the cost of launch. To this you will need to add the price of the accelerating block, fairing, maintenance of the spaceport, etc.)
                      1. slipped
                        slipped 29 June 2020 16: 08 New
                        -2
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        What technology? laughing


                        Weak to look into the English-language wiki? laughing

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        The cost of Falcon-9 is a trade secret.


                        Well, they don’t have such RIA news there that they know.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        One can only judge by the launch price at which they sell. For example, one of the all-inclusive launches left NASA for $ 50 million.


                        Start-up price - it is competitive and can be any. It does not depend on the cost of production. And something tells me that the cost of production of F9 is much higher than four billion rubles.
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 29 June 2020 16: 11 New
                        +2
                        1) So say it.
                        2) So it's not a secret that a trade secret
                        3) Depends if the company does not want to go broke.
                      3. slipped
                        slipped 29 June 2020 16: 14 New
                        -3
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1) So say it.


                        Quote: The injector at the heart of Merlin is of the pintle type that was first used in the Apollo Lunar Module landing engine (LMDE).

                        The rest around this technology was finished.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2) So it's not a secret that a trade secret


                        Can you imagine how open our society is that it does not hide the cost of products, unlike .....

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        3) Depends if the company does not want to go broke.


                        The Pentagon will not.
                      4. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 29 June 2020 16: 18 New
                        +2
                        1) It says that Marilyn uses the same type of needle in the pin nozzle as on the Lunar module. Nothing for a technologist. And also the kerosene on which the Falcon-9 flies is the same as on the rockets of that time. wassat This is not an engine technology, it is the technology of one extremely small part on an engine. And that is not a fact that technology, since the type is not a copy.
                        2) Because we do not have a private company?
                        3) The Pentagon would drown SpaceX whenever possible, it actually has a favorite company for launching rockets into space. ULA is the union of Boeing and Lockheed of the Pentagon's best friends. And Mask spoils them all raspberries
                      5. slipped
                        slipped 29 June 2020 17: 16 New
                        -2
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1) It says that Marilyn uses the same type of needle in the pin nozzle as on the Lunar module. Nothing for a technologist.


                        like this laughing

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        And also the kerosene on which the Falcon-9 flies is the same as on the rockets of that time. wassat


                        Wow, but they give out for novye. laughing

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        This is not an engine technology, it is the technology of one extremely small part on an engine. And that is not a fact that technology, since the type is not a copy.


                        Nice to deal with a specialist lol Especially so knowledgeable about engines.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2) Because we do not have a private company?


                        Because we don’t lie like them. lol

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        3) The Pentagon would drown SpaceX whenever possible, it actually has a favorite company for launching rockets into space. ULA is the union of Boeing and Lockheed of the Pentagon's best friends. And Mask spoils them all raspberries


                        Well then, let it not start its monopoly on Falcons laughing Are you so naive or pretending to be? laughing
                      6. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 29 June 2020 18: 55 New
                        0
                        1) Even the USSR managed to move to this kerosene. So successful mixture turned out. Zenith also flew on the American RP-1.
                        2) Even as time, Rosskosmos called itself an unreliable source once I remember. Refuting his own statement, which by the way turned out to be true wassat
                        Well, already plans and plans that are always on schedule and always fly away to the left
                        3) And Musk first sued the Pentagon actively, and then brought the now deceased McCain to start a torment over unpotriotic engines in Atlas missiles that produce ULA. And to get the engines again, ULA went to the world with Mask and the Pentagon certified Falcon-9 for military loads
                      7. slipped
                        slipped 29 June 2020 20: 55 New
                        -2
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1) Even the USSR managed to move to this kerosene. So successful mixture turned out. Zenith also flew on the American RP-1.


                        Because the Zen-omnivorous RD-171 engine. They controlled what SL was at hand with.

                        And so in general they used synthine and now we are switching to naphthyl.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2) Even as time, Rosskosmos called itself an unreliable source once I remember. Refuting his own statement, which by the way turned out to be true wassat
                        Well, already plans and plans that are always on schedule and always fly away to the left


                        Well, tell us in detail what you remember there. Plans are carried forward for objective reasons. What does this have to do with the cost of rockets?

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        3) And Musk first sued the Pentagon actively, and then brought the now deceased McCain to start a torment over unpotriotic engines in Atlas missiles that produce ULA. And to get the engines again, ULA went to the world with Mask and the Pentagon certified Falcon-9 for military loads


                        How did this affect the high, compared to commercial, launch prices of the Pentagon? laughing
                      8. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 29 June 2020 22: 50 New
                        0
                        1) Sintin and Naphthyl for the Unions and they are the same age as RP-1 both.
                        2) A huge number of them, read about MLM. And direct, if here they lie continuously, then what is there to expect?
                        3) The fact that before the ULA received 210 million for a rocket of 17 tons, and now Musk launches for 90 million a rocket of 22,8 tons for the Pentagon.
                        For the Pentagon came a price collapse. laughing And so in the domestic market SpaceX does not compete with Proton, but competes with ULA with their horse prices. That's the whole price difference.
                      9. slipped
                        slipped 30 June 2020 01: 30 New
                        -2
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1) Sintin and Naphthyl for the Unions and they are the same age as RP-1 both.


                        Naphthyl is a domestic RG-1 fuel. Analogue of the American RP-1. Its use will be on Vostochny for all carriers. In the meantime, they use T-1 kerosene. Cintin was used in U2, now it is no longer.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2) A huge number of them, read about MLM. And direct, if here they lie continuously, then what is there to expect?


                        About MLM? Where? belay Tests go along it, depending on the results of these tests and for a variety of other reasons, the dates may be shifted. As everyone does, they will launch.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        3) The fact that before the ULA received 210 million for a rocket of 17 tons, and now Musk launches for 90 million a rocket of 22,8 tons for the Pentagon.
                        For the Pentagon came a price collapse. laughing And so in the domestic market SpaceX does not compete with Proton, but competes with ULA with their horse prices. That's the whole price difference.


                        Those. for the Pentagon, 90 million. Clear. Yes, let them compete inside. They don’t be able to launch our military and civilian satellites with our missiles, even if our launch costs $ 30 million, they won’t give their own.
                      10. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 June 2020 06: 50 New
                        -1
                        1) the USSR, by the way, studied the transition and decided that the game is not worth the candle
                        http://free-inform-ru.1gb.ru/pepelaz/kerosene.htm
                        In the future, starting with the R-9 ICBM for the engines RD-111 (8D716) - the first stage, RD-461 (11D55) - the second stage, it was decided to switch to the rocket fuel kerosene RG-1 (naphthyl) specially developed for use in space )

                        Accordingly, for the third-stage engine of the Soyuz-U launch vehicle RD-0110 (11D55), as a descendant of RD-461, kerosene RG-1 is used.

                        In relation to the RD-107 and RD-108 liquid propellant rocket engines (modifications 11D511, 11D512) in 1970. work was underway to transfer engines of this type from T-1 fuel to RG-1 fuel. The possibility of switching to RG-1 was considered both in terms of the unification of fuels on various engines, and in terms of increasing the specific impulse of engine thrust. Tests have shown that when converting engines from fuel T-1 to RG-1, there is no increase in specific impulses of the draft of the combustion chambers. Further work on switching to RG-1 fuel was discontinued [10].

                        2) Displace again and again. Let me remind you that according to the initial plans, in 2007, MLM was supposed to be part of the ISS. And yes, at the time of the initial plans, the module was in hardware, it was only necessary to redo it a bit.
                        3) They may, the Pentagon has banned for itself. That's just the Pentagon has never used our missiles. Therefore, so hold the trend blundered
                      11. slipped
                        slipped 30 June 2020 21: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1) the USSR, by the way, studied the transition and decided that the game is not worth the candle


                        I wrote about this above. But naphthyl is less "dirty".

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2) Displace again and again. Let me remind you that according to the initial plans, in 2007 MLM was supposed to be part of the ISS.


                        In 2007, MLM just started to do. Prior to this, there was no money at all for this. Made in 2013. But the launch was delayed for well-known reasons - blockages in tanks and fuel lines. We were able to start it on a new one only in 2017. Now he is again ready for the final tests before sending to the spaceport.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        And yes, at the time of the initial plans, the module was in hardware, it was only necessary to redo it a bit.


                        In the iron was an empty iron case from FGB-2. Which radically had to be redone.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        3) They may, the Pentagon has banned for itself. That's just the Pentagon has never used our missiles. Therefore, so hold the trend blundered


                        Since 2023, a ban has been introduced on any launches of satellites with American components by our missiles. So we will launch our own "turnkey".
                      12. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 June 2020 21: 29 New
                        -1
                        1) Slightly again. There, the whole point is only in the unification of fuel.
                        2) It has already been some year in the final tests before sending it to the spaceport, a little news.
                        3) No, only on launches in the interests of the Pentagon. Which never ordered launches from us
                      13. slipped
                        slipped 30 June 2020 21: 45 New
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1) Slightly again. There, the whole point is only in the unification of fuel.


                        Sure. RD-107A / 108A at Soyuz-2 was already burned with naphthyl. The remaining engines there are for promising missiles - RD-190 and RD-171MV.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2) It has already been some year in the final tests before sending it to the spaceport, a little news.


                        It was once in 2013. Just then, tests at the RKK revealed pollution. After that, the module was returned to the manufacturer and until 2017 no work with it not carried out, since the TsiH was experiencing financial problems. The final tests of the module began this year. On June 17, the leak tests of the module body and docking units were completed. MLM Nauka is planned to be sent to the Baikonur cosmodrome next month.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        3) No, only on launches in the interests of the Pentagon. Which never ordered launches from us


                        I explain again - customers who have their own American-made satellites cannot or do not dare to enter into new contracts with Russia for the above reason. Only those whose satellites are made in Airbus or in Russia enter into contracts.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 29 June 2020 12: 52 New
    11
    Quote: Vol4ara
    Which of the missile mask from the last century? They began to develop Falcon Heavy in 2013 and launched it in 2018, 5 years on everything about everything, the heaviest and load-bearing rocket in the world


    Falcon Heavy - modular design - typical engines and slightly modified acceleration modules, but in general the design is based on the previous Falcon (Falcon Heavy consists of a reinforced modification of the first Falcon 9 stage as a central unit (first stage), two additional first Falcon 9 stages as side accelerators (the so-called "zero stage") and the second stage). So to master the production technology of a reinforced central part in 5 years is quite normal (neither fast nor slow).
    Add time for the development of the Flacon of the ninth - that will turn out 13-16 years for the development of technology.

    This is a simple approach and, on the whole, an optimal approach, to assemble from three almost standard mastered light rockets, one heavy one (only the central module is significantly modified - dimensions along the length and greater load - additional frames for attaching the side modules, which means a significant recount of structural forces, shell thicknesses, boost pressure, etc.).

    The ninth Falcon design is an innovative engine only, generally ordinary and open cycle (without afterburning) with a low pressure in the compressor station (2.5 times lower than that of the RD-191) but at the same time a rather high specific impulse, it has excellent weight perfection: thrust ratio 150 Merlin 1D and 89 for RD-191.

    To create a comparable draft at sea level - for one RD-191 (1x196 ton-force), you need three pcs of Merlin 1D (3x66,6 ton-force = 199,8 ton-force). And at the same time, the weighted perfection of the American engine is no longer so striking: 1x2200 kg RD-191 and 3x489kg = 1467 kg Merlin 1D -
    2200-1467 = 733 kg the difference is as much as one and a half Falcon engines!
    But the specific impulse of RD-191 will save one and a half tons of fuel (more efficient use of fuel combustion) in the active area and it is difficult to estimate that it is better to save 1.5 tons in the final acceleration section or 733 kg or additional = 1,49x66,6tf = 99,68, XNUMX tf engine thrust at sea level.
    Excessive thrust is not always necessary - especially during manned launches, in order to meet the permissible overload of "soft cargo" in 3G.
    The engine will have to be throttled in the active area.

    On the other hand, the low pressure in the KS of the American engine makes it easier and cheaper to manufacture - TNA is several times cheaper (it is not necessary to overcome the increased pressure in the KS to push the fuel through the jacket to cool the KS and nozzles, therefore, the Merlin 1D cooling jacket is much easier.
    On the other hand, in order to get comparable traction, you need to put 3 merlin to one RD-191 in the ratio.

    In general, you need to look at the price and resource of each of the engines. Here I run out of well-known figures to calculate the economy :) which approach is better
    That reduced everything to a plate to one dimension characteristic of both engines.

    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 29 June 2020 14: 19 New
      -4
      Well, the resource RD-191 does not know how to fly one flight; rockets with it do not know how to return, Marilyn pulls up to 100 full cycles.
      Marilyn's price is $ 1 million. Now they say cheaper, but estimates differ.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 29 June 2020 17: 50 New
        +3
        It's not so simple - you can make an RD-191 returnable, it is suitable for several starts with a partial replacement of the membrane reinforcement (membrane valves are cut with special pyrotechnic knives at start-up), possibly with the replacement of individual elements of the TNA, restoration of refractory coatings in the critical section of the nozzle, replacing nozzles, etc. - I don’t have enough knowledge of the concrete design of the RD-191 to draw conclusions about the durability of structural elements, but I think the margin of safety and resource can be used against the stated one for much longer.

        But the Americans for half a year restore the engine Merlin D for subsequent use - i.e. it is conditionally reusable - of course, the specification of the replacement parts is not disclosed, the number of human hours for the bulkhead is also. It is difficult to judge the cost of this approach.

        Yes - in the future, Space-X is striving for restarting within a week - they accordingly develop statistics on failures and the use of reusable elements in the engine.
        It is not a fact that it is cost-effective - to change cheaper disposable parts (conditionally again disposable - maybe the critical section of the nozzle and 3-5 starts will serve) to more expensive ones that will serve 15-40 starts.
        It is not a fact that the cost of reusable items will be cost-effective - but overall, the way is right.
        I wonder how the process will end - I believe that it is most likely a compromise.
        Since the pipeline system can be used repeatedly with periodic monitoring, TNA can be periodically sorted, membrane equipment replaced, reusable, nozzles and critical section - I doubt that it will last more than 5 starts, to make such loaded elements with a large resource - yes they are already more expensive than gold by weight :)

        I suspect there will be a compromise - so it is quite achievable on our engines at low cost, leading to optimal reusability of individual components and elements of the rocket engine.

        Moreover, the method of returning the steps, chosen by our engineers, with a wing and landing on the strip, it is more flexible in terms of applicability, more expensive in infrastructure, but in mass perfection, not inferior to the vertical landing scheme chosen by the Mask engineers.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 30 June 2020 06: 53 New
          +2
          Marlins do not undergo any work to replace parts and other things, this was disclosed.
          No half a year is also needed, for example, they were burned once for a full cycle multiple times, like they burned 7 or 9 times in a row. I don’t remember exactly. And launches of one stage were more often than 6 months.
          And it is difficult to make the RD-191 returnable, for this you need a special rocket and when it will not be known.
          1. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. 30 June 2020 10: 26 New
            0
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Marlins do not undergo any work to replace parts and other things, this was disclosed.


            Who was present? :))
            You can talk a lot of things.
            However, SpaceX first re-launched the Falcon 9 rocket stage in 2017.
            The interval between starts is about 6 months (time for complete disassembly, inspection and reassembly) - inspection implies full non-destructive testing (X-ray for critical assemblies, ultrasound for less critical).

            Then Elon Musk wrote - the next stage, restarting within 24 hours.
            This is a very bold statement.
            They even promised a 10% discount to customers for starting at a reused stage ...
            Do you want to risk the cost of the payload, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions, to save 10% from 62 million per launch? I doubt the commercial adequacy of such a proposal.

            In addition, Musk promises a lot:
            As Musk pointed out, Falcon 9 steps are planned to be used up to 10 times. After maintenance of these elements, they can be used up to 100 times

            The difference of 10 and 40 times is not enough.
            RD-191 has a large safety margin, respectively, in terms of resource, to be reusable - this is a completely solvable task for engine operators.

            I believe now that one RD-191 replaces 3 Merlin D, it has excellent prospects for mass production.
          2. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 30 June 2020 14: 06 New
            +1
            1) At the moment, all 100% of the launched B \ U missiles have successfully completed their mission.
            36 B \ U rockets successfully delivered cargo into space.
            2) The problem is not only in the engines, there is a lot of need for it.

            Look at the price of RD-191

            That is, the cost of restoration is from 50 to 30% of the price of a new carrier - so far is a bit much (and certainly does not pull on:

            Significantly less than 50% is from 50% to 30% here? Moreover, it was about the very first B \ U start said. When naturally checked to the maximum. Recently there was a launch when there was even no regular burning, which is mandatory for all new Falcon-9
        2. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 30 June 2020 10: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: BlackMokona
          No half a year is also needed, for example, they were burned once for a full cycle multiple times, like they burned 7 or 9 times in a row. I don’t remember exactly. And launches of one stage were more often than 6 months.


          RD-191 was also tested for several launches - successfully.
          However, tests on the stand and ascent into the stratosphere + aerodynamic descent + subsequent landing with overloads are far from ideal conditions on the stand :))

          4 months interservice period + delivery to the bulkhead and return transportation to the launch pad.

          Yes, and for the price so far:
          SpaceX President Gwynn Shotwell, speaking at the 33rd Space Symposium, did not announce the exact numbers. Nevertheless, it became clear the ratio of the cost of the new first stage and the cost of repair work on its preparation for restarting.

          The renovation costs were "significantly less than half the cost of the new first stage," Shotwell said.

          That is, the cost of restoration is from 50 to 30% of the price of a new carrier - so far is a bit much (and certainly does not pull on:
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Marlins do not undergo any work on replacement parts and other
          .
          Therefore, the ninth Falcon - while conditionally reusable media.


          Quote: BlackMokona
          And it is difficult to make the RD-191 returnable, for this you need a special rocket and when it will not be known.


          This is narrow-minded reasoning - to make a rocket easier than a good engine - in our country there are more than a dozen missile design bureaus with experience in designing large-sized missiles, they will make a flight model of a multi-gravity rocket in 6-7 years, there would be funding and competent competition.
  • Whirlwind
    Whirlwind 30 June 2020 07: 59 New
    +1
    We must also consider the breadth of launch ...
    Run a kilogram of PN, as they have, we will not succeed.
    Other things being equal they have a handicap (correct) 500 kg. Mon
    Hence, costs and prices, respectively.
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 29 June 2020 10: 28 New
    +6
    Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.
    1. Fungus
      Fungus 29 June 2020 10: 35 New
      +8
      Private formally. Mask company is a branch of NASA.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Jack O'Neill
          Jack O'Neill 29 June 2020 13: 46 New
          +3
          Roscosmos is a branch of MMM. laughing
          1. The comment was deleted.
    2. doubovitski
      doubovitski 29 June 2020 11: 14 New
      -3
      Quote: Grazdanin
      Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.

      Do not write stupidity. Compares the work of a healthy, whole. not a ruined country with the stumps of another. What is this ingenious and unknown known to this rogue? We do not have the dough, not until then. You can live without success in space. He is not running, we stopped.
      1. syndicalist
        syndicalist 29 June 2020 12: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: doubovitski
        He is not running, we stopped.

        I do not agree. We are running too. But in the opposite direction. Capitalism has already slipped, now in feudalism. The next stop is slavery.
      2. Whirlwind
        Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 12 New
        -1
        For your information ... After the defeat of the USSR in the ХV of 1945-1991, among other things, Russia pays the USA at least 1 greens a day, and that is 000 billion dollars a year!
        Here you have the economy of all of Russia on its knees, and Roscosmos on half-bent, and the Inflated Mask, including our tribute, in all its glory ...
        "Woe to the vanquished ..."
        1. pereselenec
          pereselenec 30 June 2020 11: 51 New
          -1
          Quote: Whirlwind
          Russia on DAY pays the United States a minimum of 1 greens and that 000 billion dollars a year!


          Why is Putin doing this?
    3. Roman1970_1
      Roman1970_1 29 June 2020 12: 09 New
      +5
      Not Russian, Soviet
    4. kapitan281271
      kapitan281271 29 June 2020 13: 42 New
      -2
      Quote: Grazdanin
      Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.

      Well, do you somehow think that write, it is as private as a bullet from shit
    5. MMX
      MMX 29 June 2020 18: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Grazdanin
      Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.


      For example, let's compare the budget of a "private company" and the budget of Roscosmos. This is just one aspect.
      Questions?
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 29 June 2020 18: 52 New
        +1
        Come on, Roscosmos in 2018 about $ 3 billion, SpaceX earned $ 2 billion. Questions?
        1. MMX
          MMX 29 June 2020 19: 03 New
          -1
          Quote: Grazdanin
          Come on, Roscosmos in 2018 about $ 3 billion, SpaceX earned $ 2 billion. Questions?


          Why do I need information how much he earned? I need a budget amount.
          Well, "budget". Well, you know that word?
          Read. Will come. Then check it out.
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 29 June 2020 19: 18 New
            +3
            This state-owned corporation lives on budgets, private traders live on earned money. They have no task to master the budget for a year, they have to give a result and earn money. The American company created the first version of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo space ship for $ 0,4 billion, Russia spent more than $ 4 billion on the Angara rocket alone.
            1. MMX
              MMX 29 June 2020 19: 35 New
              -1
              Quote: Grazdanin
              This state-owned corporation lives on budgets, private traders live on earned money. They have no task to master the budget for a year, they have to give a result and earn money. The American company created the first version of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo space ship for $ 0,4 billion, Russia spent more than $ 4 billion on the Angara rocket alone.


              Once again: do you understand the word "budget"?

              I repeat the initial question - what is the budget for a) Space X and b) Roscosmos?

              P.S. Small educational program - the budget has no restrictions on the form of ownership.
            2. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 29 June 2020 19: 37 New
              0
              Then continue the educational program and what is the budget of Spacex?
            3. MMX
              MMX 29 June 2020 19: 40 New
              -2
              Quote: Grazdanin
              Then continue the educational program and what is the budget of Spacex?


              So you don’t know the answer?
              Strange, you know the costs (is it?). You know the income (is it?). But you can’t voice the budget. wassat

              You see, a simple question, but it has baffled you ...
            4. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 29 June 2020 19: 44 New
              +1
              Quote: MMX
              For example, let's compare the budget of a "private company" and the budget of Roscosmos.

              So it’s you who make unsubstantiated statements, I brought my comparisons, so you bring your own. Or another blablabla without numbers?
            5. MMX
              MMX 30 June 2020 12: 14 New
              -1
              I did not make any unfounded accusations and never do. This is the first.
              Second, I just asked a question about comparing the budgets of the two organizations. You could not answer him. But you try to compare them with a serious expression on your face.
              So start with small (or large). The topic is about money? About the money. Well, compare budgets to start with, and then everything else can be in order.
            6. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 30 June 2020 12: 16 New
              -1
              Clear. Another balabol, if you do not like my numbers, imagine yours. Until then.
            7. MMX
              MMX 30 June 2020 19: 33 New
              -1
              The transition to the individual means that there are no arguments.
              You could not answer the question. Fact.
              I will answer for you (to my own question) and I will not give information. Take the trouble yourself.
  • Whirlwind
    Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 14 New
    -1
    Answers .. After the defeat of the USSR in the ХV of 1945-1991, among other things, Russia pays the USA at least 1 greens a day, and that is 000 billion dollars a year!
    Here you have the economy of all of Russia on its knees, and Roscosmos on half-bent, and the Inflated Mask, including our tribute, in all its glory ...
    "Woe to the vanquished ..."
  • pereselenec
    pereselenec 30 June 2020 11: 54 New
    -1
    Quote: MMX
    For example, let's compare the budget of a "private company" and the budget of Roscosmos. This is just one aspect.
    Questions?


    And you can also compare the number of employees of Roskosmos (189) and Space X (500). It turns out one engineer Mask is more effective than 8000 Petrovich Rogozin.
    1. MMX
      MMX 30 June 2020 12: 18 New
      -1
      Quote: pereselenec
      Quote: MMX
      For example, let's compare the budget of a "private company" and the budget of Roscosmos. This is just one aspect.
      Questions?


      And you can also compare the number of employees of Roskosmos (189) and Space X (500). It turns out one engineer Mask is more effective than 8000 Petrovich Rogozin.


      Compare the whole industry and a single company, and then conclude that more people work in the industry - a mind-blowing thing wassat
  • pereselenec
    pereselenec 30 June 2020 11: 38 New
    -2
    Quote: Grazdanin
    Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.


    If we compare companies with companies, then it will become even sadder:

    The capitalization of the national treasure of Gazprom’s supreme power as of June 26.06.2020, 65 is $ 285.



    The capitalization of the American company producing series for the Netflix cattle on 26.06.2020/195/009 equals $ 085.

    1. MMX
      MMX 30 June 2020 12: 28 New
      0
      And that the exam has already ended? Then I watch a lot of financial professionals appeared on the network laughing
      1. pereselenec
        pereselenec 30 June 2020 15: 23 New
        0
        Quote: MMX
        And that the exam has already ended? Then I watch a lot of financial professionals appeared on the network laughing


        Essentially have something to say?
        And then specialists from the generation with the "best in the world" education, who charged cans of water from Kashpirovsky, are not much better than specialists of the USE generation.
        1. MMX
          MMX 30 June 2020 19: 38 New
          -2
          Well, it's better. And strong. Vaughn Israel has built almost all of its "high-tech" for the generation of "the world's best education". Don't complain.
          And USE experts look at the capitalization of companies from various industries laughing
          1. pereselenec
            pereselenec 1 July 2020 10: 33 New
            -1
            Quote: MMX
            And USE experts look at the capitalization of companies from various industries


            Look at the capitalization of companies is much more informative than looking at a photo of Rogozin hi
          2. MMX
            MMX 1 July 2020 17: 41 New
            0
            Well, if for you these are phenomena of the same order, then please lol
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 29 June 2020 10: 44 New
    19
    Quote: Bulls.
    In addition, missiles are not a shoe; you can’t quickly cook them up.

    Remind me how many years have passed from the issuance of Korolev TK on ICBMs to the launch of the first satellite? The country, I recall, lay in ruins and terrible poverty after the war.
    How many years was the American Super-Saturn-5 created?
    Moreover, it was about creating something that no one had done before, and it was not clear whether such machines could be created in principle.
    And here, excuse me, having behind the decades of production of LVs for 25 years to bring just a new family of carriers in which there is nothing radically new in comparison with the previous ones.
    1. Whirlwind
      Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 20 New
      -1
      If at the airfield from which you fly and to which you will need to return, there is a mess, where will you "radically" fly without putting in proper order ..?!
  • Sklendarka
    Sklendarka 29 June 2020 11: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Bulls.
    Quote: Grazdanin
    No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

    Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

    With the shoes you are wrong, but the galoshes are another matter, chick and, ... space maps are tucked into the planets ... ''
  • Doliva63
    Doliva63 29 June 2020 18: 34 New
    +3
    Quote: Bulls.
    Quote: Grazdanin
    No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

    Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

    So Proton is a shoe? It was "concocted" in 7 years. laughing
  • Letun
    Letun 30 June 2020 18: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Bulls.
    In addition, missiles are not a shoe; you can’t quickly cook them up.

    Yes Yes. 1945 years passed from the end of the War in 1961 to 16. And during this time, Korolev from scratch, without any previous experience, without any computers, launched a man into space. I repeat, 16 years old. "And here Angara has only two decades in development." Justify thieves and mediocrity further.
  • doubovitski
    doubovitski 29 June 2020 10: 50 New
    -3
    Quote: Grazdanin
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    compares with the newly mastered ... but is it possible?

    This newly mastered 25 years as.

    I would like to say (but I will not) that in order to write stupidity, a lot of mind is not necessary. For the stupid and stupid, the cost of any product, with any method of production, and regardless of the country, is considered the sum of the costs of manufacturing, designing, accrual of profits and taxes.
    If you have legislation that cuts you when making a profit from above, say 7%, you won’t start to wind up your desires. If you produce three to five products, then the design costs are laid out for these three to five products. If five hundred, then five hundred. If you work in a monopolist, then your price will look different than if a dozen competitors forge iron next to you. If the state has the ability to print loot without worrying about inflation, dumping all the trouble on their vassals, and the state. which, while it has the ability to collect the budget from the crumbs of production, therefore, the taxes here are completely different, if the structure of the economy in one country is such that the manufacturer is building only a factory for something, and the other state is building both a factory and a city for all production participants, then .. ... It is up to you to decide which country to live in. Just take into account not the external side of this being, but everything in the complex. And then do not be offended.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 29 June 2020 09: 21 New
    +5
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Let the amount taken ...

    For quantity, demand is needed, for demand - a competitive price tag, and with it, apparently, it does not add up yet. Perhaps the first time "Angara" will have to start at a loss.
    1. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 29 June 2020 10: 13 New
      +6
      Quote: Kalmar
      For quantity, demand is needed, for demand

      Demand needs insurance. And no company will insure launch, unless the rocket proves certain reliability statistics. And on what to build statistics if there are no domestic payloads. Not on mass-dimensional models? Although apparently along this path and went.
      1. doubovitski
        doubovitski 29 June 2020 10: 57 New
        -5
        Quote: Jurkovs
        Quote: Kalmar
        For quantity, demand is needed, for demand

        Demand needs insurance. And no company will insure launch, unless the rocket proves certain reliability statistics. And on what to build statistics if there are no domestic payloads. Not on mass-dimensional models? Although apparently along this path and went.

        Do you consider the possibilities of an insurance PRIVATE company higher than the capabilities of a STATE insurance company? Can Russia not bear the costs and guarantees of cargo insurance? And, did she never do this? You, sitting, stepped on the floor of your coat, and try to get up. There is no way out of this situation. No one, no where, no when, if the regulator does not intervene, the STATE. Your rebus of those who are trying to decide what came before is an egg or a chicken.
        1. Mikhail m
          Mikhail m 29 June 2020 12: 11 New
          +2
          Quote: doubovitski
          Can Russia not bear the costs and guarantees of cargo insurance?

          I can’t understand why the state pays insurance companies. Indeed, in the end, even taking into account losses, it will not be necessary to pay profit to the insurer. In the conditions of limited financial resources of a private company, insurance is justified, because, although it increases the cost of the final product, it avoids the risk of failure. But at the state level, I think it is unreasonable to feed insurers.
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 29 June 2020 13: 46 New
            +3
            Quote: Mikhail M
            I can’t understand why the state pays insurance companies

            Because the state is bourgeois, in the case of Russia it is the dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie. And pursues a policy in the interests of this largest bourgeoisie, i.e. large business, including insurance.
            Consider, for example, how health insurance or "concessional" loans work.
          2. Jurkovs
            Jurkovs 30 June 2020 09: 43 New
            0
            Especially when it comes to conquering the market for international launches. And foreigners will be insured by their companies.
    2. halpat
      halpat 29 June 2020 10: 13 New
      -1
      Quote: Kalmar
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Let the amount taken ...

      For quantity, demand is needed, for demand - a competitive price tag, and with it, apparently, it does not add up yet. Perhaps the first time "Angara" will have to start at a loss.

      To devalue the ruble 4 times and the price tag will be suitable for "foreign tourists". Cheaper than Proton was. Business smile
      1. mdsr
        mdsr 29 June 2020 11: 44 New
        -2
        Quote: Halpat
        To devalue the ruble 4 times and the price tag will be suitable for "foreign tourists". Cheaper than Proton was. Business

        Let it be cheaper. But the problem is that if someone уwill then be another withwill be. The cheaper cost of missiles for foreign customers due to the devaluation of the ruble will be paid for by the higher cost of all imported goods and services for Russian citizens.
        1. halpat
          halpat 29 June 2020 15: 53 New
          0
          Quote: mdsr
          Quote: Halpat
          To devalue the ruble 4 times and the price tag will be suitable for "foreign tourists". Cheaper than Proton was. Business

          Let it be cheaper. But the problem is that if someone уwill then be another withwill be. The cheaper cost of missiles for foreign customers due to the devaluation of the ruble will be paid for by the higher cost of all imported goods and services for Russian citizens.

          And what about import substitution?
          Galoshes / boots do not? Cowards not to sew? Do not set up your planes?
          And tourists abroad have nothing to do, coronaviruses of all sorts are brought.
    3. slipped
      slipped 29 June 2020 13: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: Kalmar
      and apparently doesn’t add to it yet.


      4 000 000 000 rubles is ~ $ 57 million
  • Roman123567
    Roman123567 29 June 2020 09: 50 New
    19
    Well, the "krantik" will be screwed.

    In Russia over the past almost 30 years, nothing has ever become cheaper .. Never !!
    I think the appetites there will only grow, and they will ask for more money ..
    1. Whirlwind
      Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 28 New
      +1
      [quoteIn Russia over the past almost 30 years, nothing has ever become cheaper .. Never !!] [/ quote]
      RUPE ..!
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 30 June 2020 08: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Whirlwind
        RUPE ..!

        But to the point!
  • Civil
    Civil 29 June 2020 10: 09 New
    -6
    Proton (UR-500 - Universal Rocket, Proton-K, Proton-M) - a heavy carrier rocket (LV) designed to launch automatic spacecraft into orbit of the Earth and further into outer space. It is capable of bringing loads of up to 3,3 tons into geostationary orbit (GSO). It was developed in 1961-1967 in the OKB-23 subdivision (now GKNPTs named after MV Khrunichev), which was part of OKB-52 V.N. Chelomey.

    Developed by Soviet engineers during the "golden" time of Soviet cosmonautics. crying
    Rogozin will still show the con artist Mask. request
    1. Sklendarka
      Sklendarka 29 June 2020 11: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: Civil
      Proton (UR-500 - Universal Rocket, Proton-K, Proton-M) - a heavy carrier rocket (LV) designed to launch automatic spacecraft into orbit of the Earth and further into outer space. It is capable of bringing loads of up to 3,3 tons into geostationary orbit (GSO). It was developed in 1961-1967 in the OKB-23 subdivision (now GKNPTs named after MV Khrunichev), which was part of OKB-52 V.N. Chelomey.

      Developed by Soviet engineers during the "golden" time of Soviet cosmonautics. crying
      Rogozin will still show the con artist Mask. request

      ... your scam ???
      1. vadim dok
        vadim dok 29 June 2020 15: 37 New
        +1
        He has already shown his Cantata and the design of the corporation building! He is! And you have a fraud Mask! It’s strange, gentlemen!
        1. Whirlwind
          Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 31 New
          0
          Che, memory fails? Musk lives in the country of the victor in the twentieth .., and Ragozin and we, in the country of the vanquished ...
  • Bykov.
    Bykov. 29 June 2020 10: 12 New
    +5
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    For several decades, the manufactured rocket has been compared with the newly mastered ... and is it possible? ...

    Of course you can. Especially if you have a single goal, it is a hoot and poke about cuts.
    And it’s a no brainer that comparing the cost of the Angara with the Proton is not correct.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 29 June 2020 16: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Bulls.
      And it’s a no brainer that comparing the cost of the Angara with the Proton is not correct.

      Can thought be developed for those who are not hedgehogs? Cost directly affects the cost of launch. And this cost is one of the most important factors on the basis of which a potential customer will choose a carrier for his payload. Obviously, ceteris paribus (reliability, launch location, weight / size restrictions, etc.), a cheaper option will be chosen.
  • Avior
    Avior 29 June 2020 09: 08 New
    16
    It is unclear what justifies the more expensive rocket.
    If the possibilities are the same, why could not Proton continue to be used.
    For some reason, the article omitted this
    1. kpd
      kpd 29 June 2020 09: 13 New
      14
      It is justified in two words - scalability and ecology.
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 29 June 2020 10: 19 New
        +7
        Quote: kpd
        scalability

        Finally leave these tales of scalability. Even in the existing version, the central unit is not interchangeable with the sides. And if you're talking about scalability of payloads. So Angara-A3 is not and never will be. Even on the launch pad that is currently being built on Vostochny, the possibility of its launch is not provided. So the Angara rocket family is the most ambitious scam in our space program. As it began with deception in 1993, it continues to this day. Strictly according to Vrungel.
        1. kpd
          kpd 29 June 2020 12: 04 New
          +1
          Not interchangeable at the finished block level? Or at the level of large assembly units?
          How much do cabinet products differ there?
        2. slipped
          slipped 29 June 2020 13: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: Jurkovs
          So Angara-A3 is not and never will be.


          There will be A1.2, A5M and A5B
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 29 June 2020 09: 14 New
      +9
      Quote: Avior
      why could not Proton continue to be used

      Proton is usually criticized for using highly toxic fuel, which creates many problems. "Angara" runs on kerosene. Well, and its modernization potential, in theory, should be better: after all, it is newer. It is another matter that at such a cost it will be much more difficult to "sell" the Angara launches.
      1. Avior
        Avior 29 June 2020 09: 17 New
        +2
        Now in front of our eyes there is a launch market.
        And the cost of starting is at the forefront
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 29 June 2020 09: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Kalmar
        It is another matter that at such a cost it will be much more difficult to "sell" the Angara launches.

        Well, nothing becomes cheaper, even a Mercedes is getting more expensive every year.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 29 June 2020 09: 56 New
          +7
          In space, on the contrary, everything is getting cheaper. There, the French flew beautifully with Ariane. They gathered, were already preparing to occupy the heavy and geostationary markets, and then it turned out that 200 + million was very expensive and there were no orders. Either the Arabs will launch the satellite (and then they have already run away to the Mask), then the ESA will push the device (but this is to transfer money from one pocket to another). As a result, they are now sweating, they are making Arian6 for the last money from the eggplant and French banks, which will be about 100 million. True, there is also not encouraging, because new systems are being made all over the world, and for 100 million by the year 24 it will be possible to fly on Glen with a reuse, throwing twice as much as on Ariana. wink
    3. sanches-nk
      sanches-nk 29 June 2020 09: 18 New
      0
      I also don’t understand the reasons for the replacement, if it performs the same functions, putting the same weight into orbit.
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 29 June 2020 10: 22 New
        +4
        In Russia there is not a single launch pad for Proton. And Kazakhstan demanded to ban launches since 2024. In short, one launch was all.
    4. Roman123567
      Roman123567 29 June 2020 09: 51 New
      -2
      why not
      And how to cut ??
      Damn .. what country do you live in, people ..
    5. 113262a
      113262a 29 June 2020 10: 07 New
      +3
      HEPTIL !!! At the Kerosene Angara
      1. Sklendarka
        Sklendarka 29 June 2020 11: 16 New
        0
        Quote: 113262
        HEPTIL !!! At the Kerosene Angara

        ,, ... and if the vodka is not to be driven from sawdust, then ... ''
    6. Doliva63
      Doliva63 29 June 2020 18: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Avior
      It is unclear what justifies the more expensive rocket.
      If the possibilities are the same, why could not Proton continue to be used.
      For some reason, the article omitted this

      Because Proton is Soviet, probably laughing For 30 years, the new government has been in power, and in space everything works from the old. This is wrong. And therefore, for any money, they will replace Proton with any crap that can take off the ground - you must leave the Soviet decisively! drinks
  • Samara_63
    Samara_63 29 June 2020 09: 11 New
    14
    While the head of Roscosmos will receive a design engineer a hundred times more and without having a mathematical education, we will have problems, the head of nasa in the USA will receive more than a design engineer for $ 200 in total
    1. Brancodd
      Brancodd 29 June 2020 09: 18 New
      +3
      The head of Roscosmos has a salary 2 times lower than the salary of the editor of Echo of Moscow Venediktovna. The echo of Moscow is financed by Gazprom.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 29 June 2020 09: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: Brancodd
        The head of Roscosmos has a salary 2 times lower than the salary of the editor of Echo of Moscow Venediktovna.

        As I hear about Venediktov, there immediately disappears appetite.
      2. Maks1995
        Maks1995 29 June 2020 10: 00 New
        +2
        Cool! Medvedevsky Gazprom Venediktov pays 5 million per month officially?
        Wah, how interesting.

        Rogozinskaya is known - 6 salaries of experienced astronauts, somewhere 3-4 million total. Their Moscow office, they wrote, eats money, just like everyone else ...
        With an echo, probably 2 times cooler?
      3. aglet
        aglet 29 June 2020 10: 08 New
        -2
        "The head of Roscosmos has a salary that is 2 times less than the salary of the editor of Echo Moskvy Venediktovna. Financed by Echo of Moscow is carried out by Gazprom."
        Do you offer to give Roskosmos to Gazprom?
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 29 June 2020 12: 03 New
          +3
          Quote: aglet
          Do you offer to give Roskosmos to Gazprom?

          I propose to put on a suit on Benya and send SP 2 to finish building.
          1. aglet
            aglet 29 June 2020 16: 48 New
            0
            "I propose to put on a spacesuit on Benya and send SP 2 to finish building"
            only with Dima. only there will be no sense from them, even in a spacesuit, even without a spacesuit. because there is a specific matter, and they are specialists in the colloquial genre. Bene can still be forgiven, but Dima does not
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. aglet
            aglet 29 June 2020 16: 44 New
            -1
            "a local museum of the languid Ossetian people!"
            What do you dislike about the Ossetian people, the grandson of the heads of Soviet factories? he is no worse than the people whose representative you consider yourself to be. if you want to live with dignity, do not count on the dubious merits of your grandfather, work yourself, and earn yourself. Rogozin, by the way, was born in Moscow, and if I was in Ossetia, I don’t know
            1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Pavel73
      Pavel73 29 June 2020 09: 26 New
      +2
      I have already said: Angara is an excellently completed diploma project of new Russian rocket launchers. Now we need to make a normal rocket.
    3. Fungus
      Fungus 29 June 2020 09: 30 New
      -5
      Look at the problems there too. And it's not about salaries. So you lay down again.
    4. The comment was deleted.
      1. Samara_63
        Samara_63 29 June 2020 09: 52 New
        11
        Ask Shvidak where 9 GPZ and where 4 GPZ ??? On the site of 4 GPPs there is a development of offices and T. Ts ... On the natural 9 GPPs devastation
        The war will begin. An army from China will probably buy bearings.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. aglet
            aglet 29 June 2020 17: 02 New
            -1
            that Petryaev E.D., whose photo you sent, has nothing to do with you, he is an honored man, military doctor, officer, writer, participant in the war. Until 1956 he served in the army
            .
            one must be more modest and more honest. It seems that you also came up with your heroic grandfather, are there too many inconsistencies in your descriptions, is there enough fantasy?
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. aglet
                aglet 30 June 2020 10: 46 New
                0
                "And you can shove your modesty into your scoop puzzle. I have, I have a direct relationship.
                Another bullshit in uniform has something to say on the watch "
                son, behave yourself, you are now in the company of decent people, and not swineherds, with whom you constantly communicate.
                I say again that the photo of the person that you sent under the guise of your grandfather has nothing to do with you or your accountant grandfather. if he was in Kuibyshev, it was only passing through. I cannot understand how the "watch" is connected with that. what do you have, have something ?. and you don't need to write here under beer or drugs, your expanded consciousness is poorly perceived non-verbally
              2. aglet
                aglet 30 June 2020 11: 08 New
                0
                "Another bullshit in uniform has something to say on the watch
                ZIM of the Amur Flotilla? "
                if the dial of a wristwatch says - Amur flotilla, this does not mean that this watch was officially used on the Amur flotilla. this suggests that this is a remake of recent years of release, uses this name for advertising. and about "shit in uniform", as you say, there are many of these, both former and acting, so tie a broomstick, puppy, it can end badly, up to reactive diarrhea
      2. aglet
        aglet 29 June 2020 10: 23 New
        +2
        "My grandfather from the war was plan manager at ten large facilities, Zhigulevskaya HPP, Stankozavod, ZIM Pobeda watch factory, Samara Bearing "
        The head of the plan is a very interesting position. but nothing that these objects were built at different times, in different places?
        the machine tool plant began to produce machines in 1926, for example, and the Volga Hydroelectric Power Plant was commissioned in operation in 1955, and the rest of the winter-1923 enterprises, etc. I think your grandfather told you something wrong
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 29 June 2020 12: 13 New
          0
          Quote: aglet
          The head of the plan is a very interesting position. but nothing that these objects were built at different times, in different places?

          But in principle, everything listed in Kuibyshev was located, so it is quite logical.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. aglet
            aglet 29 June 2020 16: 35 New
            0
            but still, head of the plan, what is this position? and, Dneproges with Baikonur, he did not build? and the 100.000th machine tool in Kuibyshev was made in 1964. I have no doubt your grandfather lived in Kuibyshev in those years, and, in the war, too. but what relation did he have to all these industries? and the auditor has nothing to do with production. an auditor is an accountant, simply put
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. aglet
                aglet 30 June 2020 10: 55 New
                0
                "The chief sanitary doctor, assholes in the USSR were told about equality and brotherhood without" economics ", saw in the film Brigade how a crane with sand falls? No? Well, don't talk about your rights, economic directors get the most today. How much does Miller and Gref? And I could not even privatize the Soviet Rolex because of the bandits. The Rolex brand is now estimated at $ 6,4 billion. "
                - Is that what it was all about? Son, switch to soft drugs, and buy yourself, finally, a watch, you can even winters, there are Internet ones, even authentic ones
    5. lucul
      lucul 29 June 2020 09: 49 New
      +2
      While the head of Roscosmos will receive a design engineer a hundred times more and without having a mathematical education, we will have problems, the head of nasa in the USA will receive more than a design engineer for $ 200 in total

      I remember the scandal with Lehman Brothers and Fanny May in the USA in 2008. Then the state helped with $ 100 billion, and at the end of that year, top managers Fanny May wrote out bonuses of $ 100 million in bonuses (and this is from the money that helped the state) ...
    6. Doliva63
      Doliva63 29 June 2020 19: 10 New
      +2
      Quote: Samara_63
      While the head of Roscosmos will receive a design engineer a hundred times more and without having a mathematical education, we will have problems, the head of nasa in the USA will receive more than a design engineer for $ 200 in total

      When salary comes first, no matter how much you pay, the result will be so-so. When he worked in science, our chief, an academician (excluding the head of Roscosmos), received only 10 times more than me, a modest senior technician of the group of ion-atomic collisions in gas, and even often worked with us "at the machine", could replace any, tk. perfectly knew the whole process and the responsibilities of everyone. They did not work for money, but for the thrill of the result. That adrenaline when WE DID IT! not measured by any money. So, in fact, everything in the Union was built by which we have lived until their time. But for the money.
    7. Whirlwind
      Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 36 New
      0
      Stalin was not a mathematician, but he knew how to the main thing, to see through the cadres and arrange them with benefit for the state.
  • Aleksandre
    Aleksandre 29 June 2020 09: 14 New
    13
    The funny thing is: 30 years of capitalism, the hand of the market, effective managers .... but all this is still financed by the state, as in the USSR. Well, at least for the time being we are talking about those incomes whose income is necessary, and not, for example, for social programs.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 29 June 2020 09: 26 New
      +5
      We have state capitalism, the United States private. We have large private companies on the fingers of the hand can be counted, in the US there are no state-owned companies from the word at all. We have 2% “shit”, they have the leaders of the country. Here is the result.
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 29 June 2020 09: 17 New
    +5
    Previously, America’s goal was to degrease us in the arms race. We should not blindly follow America in space exploration. Many people already understand that the lunar program for several decades will be only a dream. And even landing on the moon will not reveal anything. Not to mention the calonization of Mars. To do this, much needs to be achieved here on Earth. These are robots that are capable of carrying out construction work. We can not resist the elements in many ways, but we dream of impossible dreams.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 29 June 2020 09: 27 New
      -2
      Quote: nikvic46
      several decades

      For several years, within 5 years, they will definitely land. USA or China.
      1. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 29 June 2020 09: 51 New
        -4
        Do not land.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 54 New
          0
          The ship for flying to the moon is Orion SLS rocket finish new lunar spacesuits made left lander to do but I think there will be no problems with it - for 4 maximum 6 years they will make and fly.
      2. nikvic46
        nikvic46 29 June 2020 13: 20 New
        0
        Landing doesn’t mean transporting goods, and this is exactly what the lunar program aims at.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 29 June 2020 17: 25 New
          0
          There will be a need to do.
          “NASA offers 35 thousand bucks for the design of toilets that will be used by participants in the lunar mission. The main requirement is that toilets must work under conditions of gravity of the moon. ”
          This is the most important sign of a serious program.
    2. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 29 June 2020 10: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: nikvic46
      Not to mention the colonization of Mars.

      Well, why is there progress, even a movie was shot about Mars’s calonization a couple of years ago, there a man cultivated kartohu in his poop, Mars calonized
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. Roman123567
        Roman123567 29 June 2020 11: 51 New
        0
        Mankind should not care ..
        After all, you don’t survive the eggs when you carry them in one basket ..))
        It must be someone OVER us .. to worry about our survival !!
      2. mdsr
        mdsr 29 June 2020 12: 00 New
        0
        Quote: vadimtt
        We need both Mars and Europe. And to be sure, then at least one more star system to populate. This is what mankind should live for, and not for the sake of "consumerism".

        You say terrible things, sir. Most people, including all the current leadership of the country and the masters of Russia, think in completely different categories, those described by the last word in your comment. Our society has not yet evolved to such a level. What can I say if they gave their homeland to be torn for the sake of chewing gum with jeans and Coca-Cola with a hamburger. The real level of development of most of our citizens is the serfdom, which they constantly prove. I also used to think that our television deliberately fools people. And then I realized that this is a request of society itself. In fact, this is a terrible reality. The most talented and smart part of the citizens of our country are well aware of this and, therefore, continue to leave every year. I understand them perfectly. I myself also really want to arrange the life of my children in Europe. It is not comfortable and not right to live with people who have psychology two centuries ago.
        1. paco.soto
          paco.soto 29 June 2020 14: 21 New
          0
          . I understand them perfectly. I myself also really want to arrange the life of my children in Europe. It is not comfortable and not right to live with people who have psychology two centuries ago. ©
          A neutral opinion, without an idiological context: there are many compatriots living around the world for a long time and this is not so far - I remembered the distances from the places of garrisons in the USSR, so it was much closer just in case to smile.
        2. Whirlwind
          Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 40 New
          0
          Let me ask you, are these most talented ones leaving for Mars? And if not to Mars, then how smart are they ..?
    4. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 29 June 2020 13: 52 New
      -1
      Quote: nikvic46
      the colonization of Mars

      "Calonization" - how's that? Throwing containers of shit? laughing
  • rocket757
    rocket757 29 June 2020 09: 22 New
    +7
    The proton, of course, is a poisonous rocket and the green ones about it are rustling for good reason ... but, you have to be able to do this for as much as the price of a new rocket.
    1. Leon68
      Leon68 29 June 2020 09: 54 New
      +6
      The cost of the hangar takes into account the transfer and establishment of production in Omsk. And this is the renewal of production assets, which have not been updated since the time of the Union.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 29 June 2020 10: 56 New
        +3
        No problem. Change, repair, upgrade production is REQUIRED!
        It is clear that small series missiles, or the first ones, will be very expensive!
        It always has been, I remember in the USSR, when they released a new product, it cost 6 million scars. When they did the final, 400 thousand of the same scars ... this is natural.
        It’s just that we have already eaten up, if it’s very expensive, that means they’re sawing, sawing .... this is from distrust, which did not arise from scratch ... the boom is hoping that everything will go in the future, it is NECESSARY to do it anyway!
  • Pavel73
    Pavel73 29 June 2020 09: 22 New
    +4
    At first they killed the Proton, who really flew and earned money. Now they’ll deal with reducing the cost of the Angara ... Don’t make it cheaper than Proton! And do not even bring it closer in value. The first stage of the Proton is one missile unit. The first step of the Hangar - FIVE missile blocks! So they arrived. The hangar is unacceptably complex and expensive for its carrying capacity. It’s even excusable to some lunar heavyweight. But not the workhorse that Proton was, and which the Hangar will never become. Only Soyuz-5 with a hydrogen accelerator can save the situation, and in the future, with the second stage. Well, it’s good that they began to speak the bitter truth. Maybe not everything is lost yet?
    1. Whirlwind
      Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 44 New
      0
      And you do not confuse anything ..?
      "Angara" - a family of Russian launch vehicles (LV) with oxygen-kerosene engines, which includes carriers from light to heavy classes - in the range of load capacities from 3,5 ("Angara-1.2") to 38 ("Angara-A5V" )
      1. Pavel73
        Pavel73 30 June 2020 08: 53 New
        0
        Alas, I am not confused. The concept of a modular rocket capable of replacing all domestic carriers "from 3,5 to 38 tons" failed miserably. The developer of "Angara", instead of competing with foreign missile engineers, tried to kill his own. Result - Angara costs a lot of money, without hydrogen it cannot replace the Proton, and it cannot even get a bast shoe up to Falcon.
  • Fungus
    Fungus 29 June 2020 09: 27 New
    -6
    A new rocket will not hurt. So great.
    1. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 29 June 2020 10: 36 New
      +4
      Quote: Fungus
      A new rocket will not hurt. So great.

      For 7 lard? .... Farewell to the commercial space, now we will fly not at the expense of the bourgeois, but at the expense of pensioners and state employees
      1. Fungus
        Fungus 29 June 2020 12: 34 New
        -2
        Stop whining
        1. Vol4ara
          Vol4ara 29 June 2020 13: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: Fungus
          Stop whining

          If this helps, then stop it. It just does not help
  • Serhio Dias_2
    Serhio Dias_2 29 June 2020 09: 29 New
    +8
    Someone someone not so long ago on a trampoline suggested launching into space to carry out.
    But in essence - the hangar will be used only for internal use.
    Russia missed the market of commercial launches thanks to such "trampolines".
  • zwlad
    zwlad 29 June 2020 09: 36 New
    +1
    The Proton-M launch vehicle is planned to be completely decommissioned by 2025.

    Strongly doubt it, given the cost of replacing the Angara.
    If they don’t specifically kill the production of Protons, he will fly another 15-20 years.
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 29 June 2020 09: 49 New
    0
    Anyway, whatever one may say, the Angara is more promising. If only because the engines are not on toxic fuel, like the old days of Proton, dimethylhydrazine and diazotetraoxide, these are terrible poisons.
    1. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 29 June 2020 10: 37 New
      -3
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      Anyway, whatever one may say, the Angara is more promising. If only because the engines are not on toxic fuel, like the old days of Proton, dimethylhydrazine and diazotetraoxide, these are terrible poisons.

      Something you do not rush to switch to electric cars
      1. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 29 June 2020 10: 42 New
        +1
        Because electric cars are not very promising, so that there managers of Tesla and other companies would not cover the citizens.
        1. Vol4ara
          Vol4ara 29 June 2020 11: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Lord of the Sith
          Because electric cars are not very promising, so that there managers of Tesla and other companies would not cover the citizens.

          But eco-friendly, so change from non-eco-friendly, but convenient and functional gasoline to electric. This is similar to proton
          1. Lord of the Sith
            Lord of the Sith 29 June 2020 21: 07 New
            +2
            These types of "green" electric vehicles are not made from green factories at all, and not from sustainable materials at all.
            So these electric cars are now bullshit for geeks.
            1. Vol4ara
              Vol4ara 30 June 2020 09: 12 New
              0
              Quote: Lord of the Sith
              These types of "green" electric vehicles are not made from green factories at all, and not from sustainable materials at all.
              So these electric cars are now bullshit for geeks.

              So are gasoline too. Only some burn fuel and release a lot of things into the environment, while others do not
              1. aglet
                aglet 30 June 2020 11: 18 New
                0
                "So are gasoline ones. Only some burn fuel and throw a lot of things into the external environment, while others do not."
                and how much was thrown out during their production? and electricity is mainly generated at the CHP. and disposal? all this chemistry? it is still unknown what is more environmentally friendly, the data are completely different, but the role of electric cars is greatly overestimated
              2. Lord of the Sith
                Lord of the Sith 1 July 2020 14: 07 New
                0
                All resource extraction and production in order to build an "ecological conditional shnyaga" is far from ecological.
                For conventional "non-ecological" too. All this "environmental friendliness", stupid PR.
      2. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 30 June 2020 08: 22 New
        0
        Quote: Vol4ara
        Something you do not rush to switch to electric cars

        And you imagine a car on UDMG. Try to refuel it from a canister without chemical protection. Breathe in the appropriate exhaust.
        1. Vol4ara
          Vol4ara 30 June 2020 09: 11 New
          0
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Quote: Vol4ara
          Something you do not rush to switch to electric cars

          And you imagine a car on UDMG. Try to refuel it from a canister without chemical protection. Breathe in the appropriate exhaust.

          What for? It’s enough gasoline or solariums, living along the road is not at all useful, so we switch from gasoline to electric.
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 30 June 2020 09: 13 New
            0
            Quote: Vol4ara
            What for? It’s enough gasoline or solariums, living along the road is not at all useful, so we switch from gasoline to electric.

            In general, I am for restricting personal vehicles - no matter what traction it is on.
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 29 June 2020 10: 08 New
    +1
    I didn’t. She was created like that. Only the developers were in no hurry to announce this.
  • Prisoner
    Prisoner 29 June 2020 10: 14 New
    0
    To sprinkle the "sawing beetles" with dust, you see, prices would have returned to normal.
  • Gust
    Gust 29 June 2020 10: 16 New
    +1
    If the Angara begins to fly, the cost will fall to the price of the same Proton (almost). And in order to start, we need orders from the state, in no other way.
    For some reason, everyone forgot that the R&D and preparation of Proton production were paid for by the USSR budget, and those costs have long been written off.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 29 June 2020 10: 18 New
      +2
      It will not fall, the news says that the target price is 1,5x from Proton
      1. Vol4ara
        Vol4ara 29 June 2020 10: 39 New
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        It will not fall, the news says that the target price is 1,5x from Proton

        But we know which way prices are changing ...
  • PROXOR
    PROXOR 29 June 2020 10: 17 New
    0
    I have a question. What is the PN for Proton and Anagara. What is the reason for changing Proton to Angara?
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 29 June 2020 10: 33 New
      +1
      Proton heptile smokehouse. Now there is a global rejection of heptile smokehouses. Of the large ones, only China holds onto them and is not going to refuse.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR 29 June 2020 11: 13 New
        +1
        Well, there are no questions, ecology is important of course, but the economy should also be there. We all did not move to Tesla. Although the electric power industry is clearly moving towards nuclear. Moreover, Russia has mastered and activated a new spent nuclear fuel reactor. And if I understood correctly - nuclear fuel now goes in a closed cycle.
        Nevertheless, we all sit on gasoline-diesel cars.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 29 June 2020 11: 34 New
          +1
          Now launches are possible only from Kazakhstan. It prohibits the launch of heptyl rockets at 1 stage.

          After 25 years, the only country from which heptyl rockets will fly in the upper stage is China.
          1. slipped
            slipped 29 June 2020 21: 16 New
            -1
            Quote: donavi49
            Now launches are possible only from Kazakhstan. It prohibits the launch of heptyl rockets at 1 stage.

            After 25 years, the only country from which heptyl rockets will fly in the upper stage is China.


            They forgot about Rokot-M. laughing
            1. donavi49
              donavi49 30 June 2020 08: 43 New
              -1
              The roar is not a space rocket, but a package of modifications for the disposal of ICBMs by the space launch method wink .

              And there are problems there, the old Roar with the Ukrainian modernization kit is already all. New ones need to be allocated 6-7 billion rubles, for the development, production and modernization + they want to modernize Plesetsk. Then, in theory, they can launch the remaining ICBMs up to 30-40 in this way.
              1. slipped
                slipped 30 June 2020 21: 07 New
                -1
                Quote: donavi49
                The roar is not a space rocket, but a package of modifications for the disposal of ICBMs by the space launch method wink .


                STA !? lol

                You will also say that the Vostok ILV is a "package of modifications for the disposal of R7 ICBMs by means of space launch." laughing

                Rokot is a space rocket created on the basis of conversion from the UR 100 UTTKh rocket with a new Briz-KM booster.

                Quote: donavi49
                And there are problems there, the old Roar with the Ukrainian modernization kit is already all. New ones need to be allocated 6-7 billion rubles, for the development, production and modernization + they want to modernize Plesetsk. Then, in theory, they can launch the remaining ICBMs up to 30-40 in this way.


                There are no problems there. Rokot and Rokot-M have a difference in RB. The contract for the production of RB "Briz-KM-2" has already been signed.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • alexey1213
    alexey1213 29 June 2020 10: 26 New
    +1
    It will never be cheaper than Proton. The metal for the manufacture of engines on the Angara is more expensive. And the fight against high cost has already begun. At KBHA, the RD-191 engines were instructed to cut standards by 50% for workers.
    1. Gust
      Gust 29 June 2020 10: 31 New
      +2
      But this is wrecking! Soon migrants will collect it for that kind of money.
    2. slipped
      slipped 29 June 2020 21: 17 New
      -1
      Quote: alexey1213
      At KBKHA, RD-191 engines were instructed to cut standards by 50% for workers.


      RD-191 assembles Proton PM. laughing
      1. alexey1213
        alexey1213 29 June 2020 22: 48 New
        0
        The combustion chamber is made by the KBKhA former VMZ .A collects them into the Energomash engine. ProtonPM makes fuel pumps.
        1. slipped
          slipped 30 June 2020 01: 12 New
          -1
          And those. KBHA collects not the RD-191, but the COP for them. I put it wrong - serial RD-191 will be assembled at Proton PM. And now yes - six TNAs within the pilot production should deliver to Energomash, the first one has left. So what about the norms cut off by 50%?
          1. alexey1213
            alexey1213 30 June 2020 01: 24 New
            0
            If the shop manager is lying, then I'm lying
            1. slipped
              slipped 30 June 2020 01: 31 New
              -1
              Quote: alexey1213
              If the shop manager is lying, then I'm lying


              and who is our shop manager? and about the rules you didn’t say anything .... said A say B
  • Ilya098
    Ilya098 29 June 2020 10: 40 New
    +4
    Piece production is always more expensive than serial production, this is what Marx withdrew in his Capital. A proton cannot be launched from the territory of the Russian Federation (due to heptyl). And Angara’s fuel is environmentally friendly, and this is a step forward. We wish good luck and patience to Roskosmos
  • 1536
    1536 29 June 2020 10: 53 New
    +2
    It would be surprising if the new rocket was cheaper than the old one. New technologies, new technical conditions of production, new remuneration for engineering and technical workers, all this does not make the cost of the product cheaper, but makes it more expensive. And the theft must end with a tight deadline for the rocket. If you don't, return everything you spent to the state budget or work for free until you return it. So many want, who today writes about "cuts", "appetites", etc.?
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 29 June 2020 12: 39 New
      +7
      The current trend in rocket science is cheaper, even cheaper, cheaper than possible.

      New technologies? What is new technology ??? Angara superconservative rocket on the way. Oxygen-Kerosene, 3 steps and classic production. There are up to ten such missiles in operation, and even families.

      New technologies are supercooled fuel components, this is methane + engine return = theoretical up to 100 flights with minimal inter-flight maintenance, this is the maximum automation of production due to this, reducing the risk of defect, lowering production costs (robots are cheaper in the future than qualified personnel), the opportunity flexible changes and upgrades. By the way, the guys defended the project and they received money, they even contracted Iridium:
      Relativity, which is developing almost entirely 3D printed rockets, has signed its fifth customer - launching replacement satellites for iridium.

      The company also now has an agreement with the Air Force to build a new launchpad at Vandenberg:

      Angara has none of this. wink Moreover, conceptually, the Angara was made during the era of the total dominance of Roscosmos in the launch market. The main competitors for 5ki were Arian and Delta4 - both missiles have now lost their market launches. In recent years, Delta has been flying either scientific or spies of all kinds, while Arian has been finishing off old orders, and business is leaving him. And this is with state lobbyism, loans from French banks and without any sanctions. The same Arabs left Arians. Following the Indians will leave in their start-up program. SES also left there were 1 or 2 contracted outputs. Arian himself makes a new rocket half the price (100 million), under the current market.
      1. Gust
        Gust 29 June 2020 13: 44 New
        0
        All this has already been- and reusable cryogenic fuel engines, and rescued (theoretically) blocks, and hypothermia. Methane does not have a sharp advantage over kerosene, except that the TNA drive is sawn up for regasification.
        New is exotic nozzles, detonation combustion, the first stage combined with the direct-flow system, etc.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 29 June 2020 14: 32 New
          +1
          Well, you need a balance. That’s every methane / supercooled reuz, the maximum automation of production is the current objective maximum, with acceptable risks.

          There are many promising areas. But the risks are no longer acceptable to the business. Some may allow it (the same Mask with a new project, again, if they do not master it, it will be great to throw them away in the classic 9ke and Heavy, but if a stainless barrel flies, it is a potentially new generation or even an era).
          1. MMX
            MMX 29 June 2020 18: 59 New
            0
            And how he breathed! How I breathed! A whole sheet dashed off about "high-tech" rocketry of the 21st century and breakthrough technologies.
            And then a certain Rafale / Valery passing by laconically remarked - "all this has already happened."
            Somewhat embarrassed donavi49 in response grunted
            Well, I need a balance

            and began to talk about how promising space technologies plow the expanses of the universe ...
            1. donavi49
              donavi49 30 June 2020 08: 49 New
              0
              Well, a business needs a balance. Money cannot be raised if the degree of risk is sky-high. Therefore, all commercial missiles are more or less conservative. But with your chips. Someone makes methane. Someone planning a more economical return than the Mask. Someone is going to print rockets on printers, engines on printers and the share of human operations has been reduced to 10%. .

              The next generation will not open it at once. However, the steps are taken. I just pointed out that Angara5 is the answer to the Arian5 and Delta4 rockets - which were the main competitors of Roscosmos during its dominance in the launch market, but today both Arian5 and Delta4 actually leave the market, losing competition to the new launch vehicles. Arian6 will be already half the price (they want to keep within 100 million). The Americans are making a new family of methane - the Volcano Centauri, in addition to the 100500 private traders, like the same Bezos and Glen.
              1. MMX
                MMX 30 June 2020 12: 41 New
                0
                I will express my opinion this way: to be a private astronautics is also a matter of time. But this process I see for myself is not so fleeting and more independent (if we talk about the private sphere).
                In the meantime, everything is done at the expense of the state in the literal and figurative sense. And it looks like: with your money and your own efforts, we will create a private space and call it all "revolution in the history of cosmonautics."
                It’s as soon as the private sector, through its own money and with its engineers, creates something effective (and, therefore, successful in the technical, technological and economic terms), then we can say that private space is a reality.
                1. donavi49
                  donavi49 30 June 2020 13: 07 New
                  0
                  What is private space?
                  Here's an example:
                  Türksat Satellite Communications and Cable TV Company - orders Turkish Aerospace Industries to make a satellite based on Eurostar architecture (from the airbase). The Turks assemble this satellite using European components and launch it on Falcon9. There is no government money or orders in production or withdrawal at all (well, TAI is a state-owned company that collected a satellite on a ready-made architecture).

                  Or Capella, a private California-based company of less than 100 people, enters the market for satellite imagery with a resolution of 50cm and radar mapping. They created their own small satellite with their own money and ordered the withdrawal of the private company RocketLab. Again, in this scheme there is money from private investors, bank loans, but there is no state money.

                  Or even closer, on July 4 a satellite flies from Canon, a public Japanese company. In the appendage, different trash from students.


                  1. MMX
                    MMX 30 June 2020 20: 17 New
                    0
                    Well then, they were many times ahead of Max and his vaunted Space X - because Ilon does not do satellites laughing
                    But the means of launch into orbit. This is where the sphere of the origin of the conquest of space begins. You can have thousands of satellites ready and maybe even the best in the world. But if there are no rockets that will deliver them into space, all this is a pile of rubbish that has a distant relationship to space.
        2. aglet
          aglet 30 June 2020 11: 30 New
          0
          "New is exotic nozzles, detonation combustion, combined with co-current first stage, etc."
          jet engines have reached their limit. further performance can result only from an increase in size, but even then, not for long. need a quality spurt
      2. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 29 June 2020 17: 30 New
        -3
        Quote: donavi49
        Arian and Delta4


        The hangar was the answer to these missiles, and they themselves are already leaving the market. In such a situation, to complete the hangar top of stupidity.
      3. 1536
        1536 30 June 2020 13: 49 New
        0
        New technologies are new technologies. They begin at the level of computer-aided design, the creation of new composite materials, engines or their components, fuel, as well as the organization of production, where all this is done. And it ends with the systems of preparation for launch, flight control, return to Earth. Of course, the number of customers putting payload into orbit plays a huge role. And here is the problem.
        Roscosmos, by the way, explained why Angara is more expensive, and also said that everything would be done to make it cheaper.
  • betta
    betta 29 June 2020 13: 03 New
    -1
    In the Stalinist economy there was no concept of "profit", there was "necessary." Everything is simple, it is necessary, then we do it. We are introducing the Stalinist economy and at least we fly to other stars, there would be a desire.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Whirlwind
        Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 53 New
        0
        There were two Peter, do you have any ...?
      2. aglet
        aglet 30 June 2020 11: 33 New
        0
        "You hear a scoop, but I don't need Stalin. In my story there is Peter 1 and Vasily the Dark, enough"
        hear you kuyak, who is asking you, grandson of an accountant?
  • bar
    bar 29 June 2020 13: 13 New
    +3
    The newest Russian heavy-class launch vehicle, Angara-A5, turned out to be three times more expensive than the decommissioned Proton launch vehicle.

    It is not surprising, considering that Proton worked on heptyl with diazot tetroxide, and Angara - on kerosene with cryogenic oxygen.
    1. slipped
      slipped 29 June 2020 13: 39 New
      -3
      The news is generally NEVER. The fact that the first carriers will be expensive in testing was known before. Also known is the cost of launching already ordered carriers ~ $ 64 million apiece.

      RIA once again hypanulo - hamsters blew up. laughing
  • CBR600
    CBR600 29 June 2020 13: 35 New
    0
    I have not read the comments, I repent. An article about a new stage in our cosmonautics and, of course, a rise in price is inevitable. Excuses are appropriate. Hooray Angara !! They promise that the A5M will throw 27,5 tons on the NCO. It is scary to imagine. Sincerely cheers !!
  • paco.soto
    paco.soto 29 June 2020 14: 26 New
    +1
    Neutral opinion: the ruble exchange rate over the years is not included in the estimates of the carriers and (probably "useful" sanctions are also a rise in price)
  • ont65
    ont65 29 June 2020 14: 45 New
    +1
    The price is moderate. Given the additional options of a heavy Angara, in comparison with Proton, it will fit into the budget of Roscosmos. When changing benchmarks for operating requirements, you still have to sacrifice something. All Soviet equipment was tightly optimized in terms of costs, and Protons with the Unions are a clear example of this. That's interesting, the operation of the centenarian of the Union is the same because it is cheaper than the planned Union 5 with the Federation. But something is not heard about this project of criticism.
  • ont65
    ont65 29 June 2020 15: 08 New
    +1
    Strange, Musk for launching a manned Dragon (who hadn’t flown anything yet) tore off $ 0.5 billion from NASA and all hopped as one Ukrainians on the Maidan. About it! A cost-effective mission to deliver as many as two astronauts to the orbit of the ISS. And this is for a minute 8 pcs. Scary dear Angara A5. No logic.
    1. MMX
      MMX 29 June 2020 18: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: ont65
      Strange, Musk for launching a manned Dragon (who hadn’t flown anything yet) tore off $ 0.5 billion from NASA and all hopped as one Ukrainians on the Maidan. About it! A cost-effective mission to deliver as many as two astronauts to the orbit of the ISS. And this is for a minute 8 pcs. Scary dear Angara A5. No logic.


      Scary things say. It’s not accepted here.
      Ave, Musk!
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 51 New
      0
      Actually, 65 million.
    3. aglet
      aglet 30 June 2020 11: 36 New
      +1
      "Oh, yes! A cost-effective mission of delivering as many as two astronauts to the ISS orbit."
      well, actually 6. six astronauts
    4. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
      Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 30 June 2020 20: 59 New
      0
      And where did you see here something about the price of the Eagle? Or is it supposed to be free?
  • senima56
    senima56 29 June 2020 15: 57 New
    +2
    Another 10-15 years will "master" - and it will become absolutely "golden"! Do you hear: "whack-whack"? This budget is "sawed"! fool
  • strelokmira
    strelokmira 29 June 2020 18: 46 New
    0
    With the cost, okay, the main thing is that the launch pad should be assembled for it and calmly launched from the territory of the Russian Federation. As for the commercial launches, then Roskosmos is already everything, everyone who really could pay either created their space programs or go to use cheaper services. So now we need to proceed only from government subsidies, and there it seems there is no money to redesign Angora
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Whirlwind
      Whirlwind 30 June 2020 08: 58 New
      0
      Dear, why are you running into a heavy one, Angara is a family of Russian launch vehicles with a kerosene oxygen engine, which includes light to heavy classes of carriers in the load range from 3,5 (Angara-1.2) ) to 38 ("Angara-A5V") ...
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. aglet
      aglet 30 June 2020 11: 40 New
      0
      "India has over 1 billion population"
      and the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea. do not drink before watching
    2. Andrey Ostroushko
      Andrey Ostroushko 30 June 2020 15: 18 New
      0
      And sad people with a clown president, at the request of the IMF, will soon be tagged with Faberge so that they do not reproduce and ask for food, this will be your real change in the growth of Ukrainian demography. You would be envious in silence.
  • lvov_aleksey
    lvov_aleksey 29 June 2020 23: 36 New
    0
    Ukrainians do not forget pliz!
  • lvov_aleksey
    lvov_aleksey 29 June 2020 23: 41 New
    0
    I'm tired of reading the chat! I haven’t seen so much junk yet, there’s nothing to talk about !!!
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 49 New
    -1
    A5 hangar for the military - everything else will be launched on the Irtysh.
    1. Whirlwind
      Whirlwind 30 June 2020 09: 02 New
      0
      The Yenisei is on its way ...
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Andrey Ostroushko
      Andrey Ostroushko 30 June 2020 15: 19 New
      0
      Did you understand what you wrote?
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 30 June 2020 09: 20 New
    0
    But while everyone is throwing slippers at Roskosmos, a private company in Krasnoyarsk is preparing to launch the Siberia launch vehicle, which will bring a ton to LEO. Few? So after all, the first "Falcon" in general took out only 420 kg. And most importantly, all this was done without billions of dollars in infusions from NASA, on its own. This is who will bite off Musk's market in favor of Russia. Here you have both cheapness (all your own!), And localization of production, and favorable conditions for poor customers.
  • Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
    Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 30 June 2020 10: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Bulls.
    only two decades in development

    It is hard to be a Russian patriot, but they are strong people, they can handle it.
  • Aleksey60
    Aleksey60 30 June 2020 11: 25 New
    0
    The cost of manufacturing the Proton-M rocket, according to data from the public procurement website for April this year, is 2,33 billion rubles

    That is not correctly calculated.
    - Manufacturing and delivery of the Proton-M launch vehicle for launching the Express-AMU4 spacecraft - 2 327 649 340,00 ₽.
    - Manufacturing and delivery of the 14S75 head fairing for launching the Express-AMU4 spacecraft - 210 rubles.
    Total: ₽ 2 537 698 200.
    And the Russian Defense Ministry ordered four hangar-5 missiles for 18 billion rubles.
    It turns out ... it turns out ..., two went to mind ..., it turns out 4,5 billion rubles apiece.
    Who takes in bulk - that discount.
  • Andrey Ostroushko
    Andrey Ostroushko 30 June 2020 15: 11 New
    0
    in "Roskosmos" talk a lot too much.
    1. slipped
      slipped 1 July 2020 01: 45 New
      -1
      Quote: Andrey Ostroushko
      in "Roskosmos" talk a lot too much.


      Well, today they "chatted" about a state contract for A5M, A5B and A5VM carriers with a recoverable first stage. laughing